What martial art style did Liam neeson did in the movie Taken?

Answer 1

Filipino Martial Arts named Kali Useruser: Escrima, a Filipino martial art focused on stick fighting, eg. pens or rolled-up newspaper. Melee moves are from Krav Maga, official Israeli Defence Force martial art. Asian Mythology: Kālī is Hinduism.

One of the manifestations and cult titles of the wife of Shiva and mother goddess Devi, especially in her malevolent role as a goddess of death and destruction, depicted as black, red-eyed, blood-stained, and wearing a necklace of skulls.

Answer 2

"The type of martial arts we're using in the Bourne films has been basicly backgrouned in Filipino Kali with a little bit of Bruce Lee stuff tied in. It's a little bit different. It hasn't been photographed a lot. The exicutions are very fast and proven in combat. It basicly takes care of your opponent as quickly as possible." - Jeff Imada (Fight Stunt Coorinator for the Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum) I hope this was helpful! =D

Answer 3

In my opinion, I think the character, since he was an ex-spy, Used a combination of techniques or as you call it styles from krav maga and pekiti tersia or empty hand doce pares or it could also be F.S.C. All I know is that spies are trained in a lot of combat skills to improve themselves. In my opinion, I think the character, since he was an ex-spy, Used a combination of techniques or as you call it styles from krav maga and pekiti tersia or empty hand doce pares or it could also be F.S.C. All I know is that spies are trained in a lot of combat skills to improve themselves A lot of the techniques he uses were not exactly realistic but most of the more realistic techniques can be found in the system originally taught to WWII British and American spies. Col. Rex Applegate originally trained OSS operatives in this system during WWII, and it was used by CIA spies/assassins up through Vietnam. After Vietnam, the government determined that the system was too brutal and left it behind in favor of the more sport based system that our military and CIA currently use .

Answer 4

You mean Tekken? Mostly Karate and Kung Fu, and even then it was theatrecal versions of it. While disclaimers such as this are not necessary, I feel compelled to type it anyway; for a long time now, the plots of fighting games have explained that the characters involved are on a different level. Take for example the Street Fighter franchise. Why do you think it has psychotic characters like Vega and Balrog, and later on, guys like Rufus and El Fuerte? Capcom is, with some trademark Japanese sense of humor, sending a message that to fight as well as the Street Fighter characters, you need to be either mentally ill, truly obsessed, in an unhealthy way, with martial arts OR, someone who has meditated and trained hard for most of his or her life, like Ryu, Ken or Chun Li. In a darkly, typical-Japanese-humor manner, it is explained that Vega's agility, his ability to fly all over the screen comes from the fact that he's psychotic. Its the same with M. Bison; his inhuman strength does not come from the way he's built, or even his fictional mental powers, but from the fact that he's insane. So, why is M. Bison a psychopath? Because the plot of Street Fighter requires it, remember a lot of impressionable kids in Japan play the games. The message of street fighter, is that a well trained martial artist who trains hard, meditates a lot, and works hard to improve themselves is able to beat, in a fight, even a dangerous psycho like Bison. The idea of all the "mind" stuff talked about in Kung Fu, and Karate, is rooted in the fact that Chinese, Korean and Japanese people have known for a long time now, that mentally deranged individuals are capable of near superhuman feats. The idea of meditation combined with the physical conditioning used in martial arts is to achieve that, but without the debilitating madness. That is the main reason you can not compare martial artists, TRUE martial artists, with athletes; the physicality of serious martial arts training goes beyond just sports. Sports are valuable though; its a fun way to stay in shape for one, I mean, what would you prefer, a boring 45 minutes on a treadmill, or, an exiting hour long one on one Basketball game that feels only lasted a minute? People who don't play sports, suffer a lot when they try to get in shape, however sports fans who play on a daily basis, or at least 6 days a week, they enjoy their cardio, for them time flies. A non sports person on a treadmill though? Time slows to a boring crawl. Basketball is a good sport for martial arts. No, not because of Charles Barkley or "street ball" style brawling; Basketball uses a lot of finesse based footwork, and you need to be very good at dodging the other guy. Think about it; when going for the net, whether you can dunk it, and go for the dunk, or going for a 3 point shot, you need to get the hell out of the way of a bunch of guys. That can lay a good foundation for martial arts because you train body and mind to dodge when you don't have time to think. Also, Basketball instills a sense of rhythm. Forget roadwork; for cardio, believe it or not Basketball is far better for boxing. In a typical vigorous one on one game you run 7 miles anyway, if you decide to have a one on one game using the whole court, instead of just half. Traditionally the rules say you can only use half a court when playing one on one. You know what? Screw that; if you are serious about martial arts use the whole court. The more distance you cover the better; ultimately though, nothing replaces an outright team effort. Ideally, a boxing gym should have all its guys play basketball, 5 on 5, for 2 hours early every morning. That would take care of all endurance, conditioning and rhythm stuff.

Answer 5

I think the official term is "historical recreation martial arts; ancient Greece" with a lot of stunt work in between. Its not an actual fighting style per se, so much as a recreation attempt which injects into the system, many east Asian characteristics as east Asian fighting styles are the only ones still in use. If you saw a lot of Shaolin rattan shield work in there, its because that is how recreationists of western martial arts compensate for any lack of information. Many of the sword fights you see from midieval, and ancient world buffs, comes from poorly drawn, very poorly rendered manuals, anything the manual does not cover, they compensate for with imagination and known Indian or Chinese martial arts still in use today. Pankration gets a brief showing, but its only that scene where Leonidas instructs his son; the throw he used on him, I don't believe exists anywhere in Judo, or BJJ or MMA even, its a Pankration exclusive. It could exist; not familiar with the grappling arts too much.

Additionally, there is the Phalanx formation, which IS well known; throughout Europe, in libraries all over Europe there are literally hundreds of war manuals on how to form tight shield and spear formations, with variations here and there. The truth is, the Greek phalanx formation was not in fact discarded until the 1750's, the time when FINALLY gunpowder weapons became reliable enough to be FULLY used on a battlefield. The truth is, warfare did not change that much from the time the ancient Greeks developed the Phalanx, clearly until the early 1700's. By the mid 1700's however gunpowder weapons were far more accurate, and deadly, and the formation finally became useless.

If the Phalanx formation was used so prevalently in Europe it is because it WORKED. Although, the people who set the "gold standard" for war in Europe, were not the Spartans, but in fact the Thebans, another Greek city state whose soldiers by the way, were every bit as tough as the Spartans. That is they had a soldier class that trained from the age of 4, the moment they could hold a weapon, but unlike the Spartans, they were not bound by rigid tradition. The Spartans stubbornly held that all you needed was a Phalanx, and that's it. So long as they fought only other Greeks, or were lucky, this was never a problem. However the Thebans, who were an extremely pragmatic Greek people, said that to survive a city state needed EVERY area of knowledge ranging from science, to war. The people of Thebes were especially deadly, because they combined Athenian brain power, with Spartan toughness.

Alright, so what was the Theban "gold standard" which became the standard for war for centuries until the 1700's in Europe, the "gold standard" which the Romans used, and perfected to a high level to conquer the lion's share of the peninsula?

1) Standard infantry, but your infantry, has the basic equipment of sword, shield, spear, breast plate, helmet, brasiers and grieves. The mediterranean line of thinking was, it was better to lightly armor many men, in the most vital areas (namely the trunk and parts of the limbs), than to heavily armor a few men. Hey, after all a country only produced so much metal; you give all the metal to an elite corps of Knights and you limit the number of protected men you can field in battle. Part of the reason Germanic peoples could never field large numbers was their cowardice and stupidity; they gave all the metal, all the armor, to only a few men, rather than distributing it among many men, hence their numbers were not only always small, but the soldiers moved incredibly slow. Hoping being covered head to toe in metal would protect them, against the Mongols it had the opposite effect; it made them sitting ducks. A lightly armored Spanish conquistador by contrast had both effective protection AND mobility. The Vikings however, of all Teutonic peoples were a little smarter, and used chain mail heavily as a matter of common sense, to save as much metal as possible, to distribute it to as many men as possible, to have the most effective protection possible. The rest was up to the warrior's own skill. So anyway, said standard infantry, their job was to form a phalanx, and either gain ground when necessary, or prevent the enemy from gaining ground.

2) Archers, both on foot and on horseback, and here is where tactical genius came into play; the effective deployment, or neutralization of archers, is often what won battles in fact, the main reason Alexander the great was able to conquer the Persian Empire, had to do with the fact that his whole strategy revolved around neutralizing archers first, as he knew they were the greatest danger to his men. Because most middle eastern, Persian, and north Indian armies relied so heavily on them, and these were slow moving, foot or chariot archers by the way, basically, middle eastern and west Asian armies were literally MADE for Alexander. Made for him that is, to rip to pieces. Alexander however, did not use the "gold standard," namely, phalanx base infantry, archers, and shock cavalry. Alexander felt that Phalanx with extra long spears, the infamous Macedonian Phalans, and good cavalry were all that was necessary to win battles. Alexander's strategy was simple; ride towards or around the enemy at full gallop, hit them as hard as humanly possible with each pass, and, if and cause confusion, that is make them loose their sense of direction so that they would not be aware they were marching towards his Phalanx, and hence to their deaths. Alexander, was all about causing the breaking of discipline, and causing disarray, and using his cavalry or other set of infantry to slowly "herd" his enemies into his Phalanx. Due to this strategy of fighting, for the Persians numbers meant next to nothing.

3) Mentioned earlier, the "shock cavalry" and exactly as the name sounds, that was their job; to hit the enemy extremely hard with metal, horse hooves and horse flesh, e.g. to "shock" them. I got hit by a horse; I'm shocked. Anyway; the strategy varied from general to general. Some had a "hit first" policy, others were exclusively reliant on them and some, like Caesar, used them as "trump cards." Cavalry archers were not unique to the mongols; the invention of the stirrup, had made cavalry Archery known to the Greeks and later the Romans however, they were not widely used as western military powers felt it was impossible for a man to shoot well from horse back. The Huns, Turks, and Mongols however would later prove them wrong. Even then though horse archers are not invinsible; the way you beat them, is that you charge them full gallop right as they fire their arrows, hopefully you are close enough, and your horses are fast enough, to catch them right as they are reaching for their next arrow. If your horsemen are disciplined and coordinated enough, you may just catch them; that was the mindset of anyone who fought against the Mongols.

So there you have it; cavalry, phalanx infantry, and archers, and how a general used those three varied from region to region however the whole of Europe, generally used those three. Not just the whole of Europe though; you also saw that pattern of warfare in India, China, and Japan, however in Japan, the infantry never developed Phalanx formations, however China developed a unique variation of it, although, it was slow and cumbersome. Militarily China's numbers have always been a double edged sword; with that many soldiers you do have a numerical advantage, but, you also have all kinds of logistical nightmares.

The what can be reliably called a "martial art" of "The 300," was only the Phalanx formation. Thebes in fact defeated Sparta, because again, it was Thebes who developed the "gold standard" of warfare in Europe, namely, cavalry, archers, and phalanx infantry. Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs, because instead of "archers," he had cannons, and he used shock cavalry in addition to Phalanx formations. The Aztecs were not stupid, however the horse was unknown to them, so all they developed was two of the three known aspects of war in the eastern hemisphere namely, archers and believe it or not the Phalanx formation. The Aztecs too developed the Phalanx on their own; however, it was a Phalanx of wood and obsidian weapons, against a Spanish Phalanx made out of almost solid steel. Racial superiority had nothing to do with it; just the European's good fortune, of having gathered so much knowledge from various eastern hemisphere civilizations, and misused, and abused it.

Answer 6

it reminded me a lot of krav maga which is an extremely popular martial art originating in the Middle East

Answer 7

Hapkido

Answer 8

Ballet